My "Dark Side" Experience

bjyoder wrote in post #7837595
Just look at what some of those guys get, and remember that it's the photographer more than the equipment by a long shot. Me with my little Sigma 70-300 APO and 40D on the sidelines of an Ohio State football game looks out of place, but everyone that sees my photos can't get enough (not trying to say I'm a pro, but I can hold my own).

I always have to tell customers in my store the equipment doesn't matter that much. Just be sure you like to use it - so you WILL use it, people don't normally use what they don't like - and go out and take pictures. Although cost can become an issue at times, the simple fact is there is a lens out there for every manufacturer that will get you the shot you're looking for. Besides, if you don't have the money for new equipment, go out and get the shot in a different, creative way.

You shot at the spring game?

NorCalAl wrote in post #7822978
It's certainly true the photog makes the shot. No doubt. The D300, imho, just provides more opportunities to make that shot. Love the AF, tho I had NO complaints about my 40D. Love the LCD, but I understand the 50D has that covered. But Canon doesn't have the Nikon CLS. I'm sorry, but I do like the ergos of Nikon a bit better right now and it's what keeps me on this side. That and the hope that any day the $1000 f4 lens lineup is coming. Yeah. right. And the Easter Bunny.

What, if anything, did you shoot prior to going digital?

Which specific controls do you find to be more ergonomic on the D300?

One thing that hasn't been mentioned here, I don't think, is that Nikon in the past two or so years came out with their big guns totally redone with VR, the 400 f2.8, 500 and 600 f4. While these lenses are as expensive as a used car, they are absolutely amazing quality. All one need do is hold them in comparison to their Canon counterparts to see the incredible quality, from the bags they come with to the carbon fiber hoods, etc.

And let's not lightly dismiss the 200-400. It's an absolutely incredible offering in spite of its price.

Before the recent spate of price increases, the Canon 200 f2 was over a thousand dollars more expensive than the Nikon f2.

I completely agree about Nikon's lack of f4 glass. I prefer f2.8, however, so it doesn't really matter to me.

As to IQ of the 70-200, with the exception of the edges of the frame, which I don't discount the importance of, the lenses are equal. If one uses the Nikon version on a crop format, it's an amazing lens.

The new Nikon 24-70 is superior to the Brick in many ways, IQ, weight, build quality, etc. Neither have IS nor need it.

Please don't mention the 17-40 or 16-35 in the same sentence as the 14-24. The 14-24 is probably the best wide angle zoom ever produced, period, end of story.

Is the Nikon offerings in some instances obscenely expensive? Yep. But if you can't pay, don't play. Price don't bother me; never has, never will.

I was originally a Canon shooter with the AE-1 Program, switched to the D100, then back to Canon with the 10D, 20D, 1DsMKII, 1DMKIII, 1DsMKIII.

Dumped them all when I realized how much more accurate and consistent the D3's focus is.

And let's not forget the far superior flash system of Nikon. That's an established fact. And their new SB900, with it's variability from wide to normal to narrow beam, and it's zoom range, is unmatched by any current Canon offering.

me

nicksan wrote in post #7819887
Yep, lenses are what's keeping me on this side.

exactly the reason I just switched from the "Dark Side" after 40 years. Frustration with the lenses. This time last year I owned 32 Nikon Lenses!

As to why Nikon users user older lenses? Simple there are no modern ones say 3rd party. What you have at Nikon today are some great bodies looking to hook up with "modern glass". Till that really comes about I am real happy here today with Canon. It's been a great few weeks!

I use both systems. I went to Nikon because of my frustration with the AF specs on the 5D Mk2. I love the D700 and the AF is light years ahead of the AF on my 50D or 5D Mk2, so I've not regretted it. Having said that, I ended up buying the 5D Mk2 anyway and I'm very happy with the IQ on that.

I use the Nikon for sports and low light work & the Canon for portraits/landscapes. Seems to work well for me.

Sibil wrote in post #7840147
Best statement I have read on POTN, and one I absolutely agree with.

The eye of the photographer is the single most valuable gear.

This is all true, however it doesn't mean a thing when comparing camera gear.

A good photographer can take amazing pics with an old 40s Kodak, but when one buys a modern DSLR one expect certain levels of performance. Whether a user has enough skill to overcome camera's limitations is irrelevant when talking about equipment.

I stand by my opinion - Nikon's algorythm isn't just different, it's superior/

Doing my best broken record impression:

The new D3 really intrigued me, especially even more now given my now-disappointment with the 5Dmk2, however when I compared the system I currently have with Canon in terms of lenses, to what Nikon offered lens-wise it made it a no brainer for me to stay with Canon. Don't get me wrong, Nikon lenses obviously are great. So are Canons. However, the fast prime lineup that Canon has coupled with their extensive L-glass zoom range really keeps me in the Canon family. The way I look at it, cameras get replaced every 18 months or so, however when you buy a lens, it could be 10+ years before that gets upgraded.... Soooo, I'd rather wait and take my chances for Canon's cameras to get updated in another 18 months or so, as opposed to waiting for who knows how long for Nikon to come out with a 135L competitor, 35L competitor, or a reasonably priced pro-spec 400mm zoom, etc.... Bottom line: the lens system keeps me with Canon. And furthermore, BOTH systems are VERY capable!

Fabrian wrote in post #7838708
Here's some food for thought as well. I had to deal with Nikon service here in Long Island. Long story short, after a couple of trips to repair a binding zoom ring on the 24-70 (was a new defect), they offered to replace it with another lens they had in the building. I declined and they cut me a check for the amount I paid on my receipt. It took a week to get it in the mail, but when have you ever heard of Canon doing such a thing? Talk about standing behind your product.. I'm sure there's folks out there that have had similar experiences with Nikon as I've had in the past with Canon service, but of all the times I was ready to rip my hair out with Canon service and the multitude of trips to Canon service, they NEVER ever offered such a thing.

Yes. I bought one of the original 70-300IS's. A defect was discovered in it, that caused images to be soft at long FL's in portrait mode. They offered a retrofit fix, or to buy my lens back. They paid the amount on my receipt, and even covered the shipping.

johnboy00 wrote in post #7840989
What, if anything, did you shoot prior to going digital?

Which specific controls do you find to be more ergonomic on the D300?

What IS much more intuitive on the nikons is the function of the thumbwheel and index finger wheel. In Av, Tv, and M mode each retains the same function - something only the Canon 1 series is able to do. To me that is much more intuitive - you don't have to remember if I am in M or Av when I want to quickly change aperture.

Canon spanks Nikon in the area that I love most, primes. My favorite lens, the 35L has no peer on the Nikon side. The closest would be a 1.8 that is similar to Canon's nifty fifty (f/1.8 and cheap build). They also do not have a 1.2 lens in their lineup that will auto-focus. Canon has 2.

I live with the motto of glass before body, and since the glass is so heavily in favor towards that Canon side, it's why I'm here. Now, if I were a wildlife or sports shooter, I could probably be swayed as their long lenses are pretty awesome.

timbop wrote in post #7843760
What IS much more intuitive on the nikons is the function of the thumbwheel and index finger wheel. In Av, Tv, and M mode each retains the same function - something only the Canon 1 series is able to do. To me that is much more intuitive - you don't have to remember if I am in M or Av when I want to quickly change aperture.

That's a good point, and I wish Canon would fix that with a CF option. I don't own a Nikon, but looking at the controls in pictures, it appears that you can't change ISO, WB, or metering mode without moving a hand from the standard shooting position. Is that really the case, or is there some other way to change them? I do like the little metering mode dial where you can quickly go to exactly the mode you want, but it looks to be too small to be reliably actuated with just a thumb.

There's also the front switch between continuous focus, single focus and manual. On the back, there's switches for both metering zones and AF points (single, single plus surrounding and all).

ISO does take your eye away from the vf, but I think (I think!) you can assign that to one of the programmable buttons. I've not tried that as I either use 100 or auto.

edit: Nope. There's lots you can do with the programmable buttons, but changing iso isn't one of them. Weird.

I love my Nikon FM2; and it's 50mm lens serves me well enough, and then some.

NorCalAl wrote in post #7845563
There's also the front switch between continuous focus, single focus and manual. On the back, there's switches for both metering zones and AF points (single, single plus surrounding and all).

ISO does take your eye away from the vf, but I think (I think!) you can assign that to one of the programmable buttons. I've not tried that as I either use 100 or auto.

edit: Nope. There's lots you can do with the programmable buttons, but changing iso isn't one of them. Weird.

Canon has buttons for all those things, all reachable by the right index finger or thumb, including ISO and WB. Why are Nikon's buttons better? And not only do you have to take your eye away for ISO, you have to move a hand as well.

NorCalAl,

I think that was a really balanced view of the "dark side". I switched over last Dec. after years of shooting canon.

I had some top of the line canon gear so I did not think it would cost me a great deal more to pick up what I wanted re: nikon.

It did. More than the equivalent of my 300F2.8IS as a loss. (because now I don't own the 300 2.8 and I paid out of pocket for the other stuff that I needed). It's incredibly expensive.

However, I'm very happy. But I do see your points. Although I used to own the 300 F4IS and now own the 300 F4 EDIF and find them to be very equivalent (in price as well as quality) though the nikon doesn't have IS.

The bodies I prefer. I even like the ergonomics better now that I'm used to them.

The one thing I really find myself thinking differently than you though is feeling forced to use MF lenses. I own them because I really like them. I like everything from the light weight to the control to the bokeh. It's one of my favorite things about switching. Not having to have an adapter and/or stopping down the old lenses to use them.

I hate it that they don't have an equivalent to the 70-200 F4IS. That's the lens I miss the most. But I feel like I've gained a whole new world with the 14-24 in comparison to my 16-35.

There are so many benefits to both sides. And so many drawbacks. Having had 3 bad (and they really were) 100-400's that weren't worth the effort I took to test them, 2 24-70's (the 2nd one was good) and a M3 that had to be recalled 2x, I don't miss the QC issues (and thus far, knock wood, I haven't had any with my nikon gear).

As often as I hear people who shoot canon say "I hate the lenses of nikon" I hear the people who shoot nikon say "why do they accept bad QC as norm" (as in the "do I have a good or bad example of this lens" threads). Truly you rarely see that on the "dark side". There are issues, as there is with anything mechanical...but it isn't consistant.

I understand your frustration though. My husband still shoots canon and will not switch. He says the price is too extreme to even consider it when he's happy with his lenses and bodies will come and go.

For me, it was a good fit and for others maybe not so good.

Sometimes I wish the two camps would meet in the middle though. Create some reliable bodies and some updated glass. And not be a fortune. However, this age and time is still the most inexpensive for photographers than it ever has been. Even as outrageous as some of the body/lens prices are.